Legal Research
Cases
Harrison v In Control Pty Ltd

Harrison v In Control Pty Ltd

Case [2013] FMCA 149 8 March 2013

Adverse Action

Breach of Contract

Dismissal

Statutory Interpretation

Employment & Labour Law

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HARRISON v IN CONTROL PTY LTD

[2013] FMCA 149

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Exercise of workplace right to make a complaint or inquiry relating to employment – statutory interpretation – complaints by an employee in small business – questions of management style and disagreement by employee about management’s strategic business decisions – not complaints or inquiries in relation to employee’s employment – reverse onus of proof – assessment of compensation – application dismissed.

Acts Interpretation Act 1901(Cth) s.22
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s.140
Fair Wok (Registered Organisation) Amendment Act 2012 s.27
Fair Work Act 2009(Cth), ss.336, 341, 342, 360, 361, 545, 546, and 547
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s.51(A)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999(Cth) s.76(1)

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v International Aviation Services Assistance Pty Ltd (2011) 193 FCR 526; (2011) 205 IR 392
Barclay v The Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education (2011) 191 FCR 212; (2011) 274 ALR 570
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] ALR 334
General Motors Holden Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 12 ALR 605
Hodgkinson v Commonwealth (2011) 248 FLR 409;(2011) 207 IR 129.
Jones v Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre Ltd (No.2) (2010) 186 FCR 22; (2010) 196 IT 241
Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union (LHMU) v Arnott’s Biscuits Ltd (2010) 188 FCR 221; (2010 198 IR 143

McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No. 4) (2006) 158 IR 181

Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd & Others (1992) 110 ALR 449; (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd (2011) 203 IR 1
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355.
Ramos v Good Samaritan Industries (No.2) [2011] FMCA 341.
Sodeman v R (1936) 55 CLR 192.
Stevenson v Air Services Australia (2012) 218 IR 210
The Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 290 ALR 647; (2012) 86 ALJR 1044

Applicant:

WILLIAM HARRISON

Respondent:

IN CONTROL PTY LTD

File Number:

BRG 365 of 2011

Judgment of:

Burnett FM

Hearing date:

24 April 2012

Date of Last Submission:

24 April 2012

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

8 March 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J Dwyer

Solicitors for the Applicant:

McCullough Robertson

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr J Merrell

Solicitors for the Respondent:

McKay’s Solicitors

ORDERS

The application filed on 17 May 2011 is dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 365 of 2011

WILLIAM HARRISON

Applicant

And

IN CONTROL PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicant and the alter ego of the respondent were former business partners. Plainly they both had strong personalities. The applicant subsequently took up employment with the respondent. Matters progressed well between them particularly as it appears they did not have to work closely together. However circumstances changed when the respondent decided it was time for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Harrison v In Control Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Harrison v In Control Pty Ltd [2013] FMCA 149
Case: [2013] FMCA 149
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

- Parties, nature of dispute, and court:
William Harrison initiated proceedings against In Control Pty Ltd in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, seeking compensation for alleged adverse action taken in contravention of his workplace rights under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The applicant, Harrison, claimed that his termination from employment was a result of his complaints about workplace management, which he believed constituted exercising a workplace right. The respondent, In Control Pty Ltd, denied the allegations, arguing that Harrison's termination was due to his insubordinate and unmanageable behavior rather than any exercise of his workplace rights.

- Legal issues the court was required to decide:
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Harrison's actions constituted a "complaint or inquiry" in relation to his employment under s.341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and if so, whether the adverse action taken against him was because he exercised this workplace right. The court also had to determine the appropriate quantum of compensation, if any, should the applicant succeed in his claims.

- Court's reasoning and outcome:
The court found that the applicant's complaints about workplace management, while critical, did not fall within the statutory definition of a "complaint or inquiry" in relation to his employment as required by s.341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act. The court reasoned that the complaints were more about management style and strategic business decisions, which do not directly pertain to the terms and conditions of Harrison's employment. Additionally, the court considered the reverse onus of proof under s.361 of the Fair Work Act, concluding that the respondent had sufficiently demonstrated that the termination was due to Harrison's behavior and not because he exercised a workplace right. The court dismissed the application, finding no contravention of the Fair Work Act and, consequently, no entitlement to compensation. However, it assessed the potential compensation at $35,125, including interest, should the court's interpretation of the statutory provisions be incorrect.

- Final orders:
The court dismissed the application, finding no contravention of the Fair Work Act and no entitlement to compensation. The applicant's request for compensation was assessed at $35,125, including interest, for the sake of argument, should the court's interpretation of the statutory provisions be incorrect.

Orders